Atheist: Prove Jesus existed

News24 (South Africa) ^ | 22 January 2006 | News24

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[handy]

[Reddy]

I hate that new BCE and CE baloney. It's a blatant attempt to disavow that humans mark years based on the birth of Christ (even if off a few years). Pure political correctness. Thankfully, no matter what it is called, the dating will still remain as the first century beginning when Jesus was born.

[VOA]

What I don't understand about some athiests, is that if they don't
believe Jesus existed, why make such a fuss over some one, that in
there mind , never lived?

In a reasonable world, the ACLU lawyers trying to erase historical
signs of the crucifix would be diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive
disorder fixated on lines intersecting at right angles.
I don't know how they manage to drive through a modern city and
not go crazy looking at some of the "big box" plate glass skyscrapers
(nothing but "crosses" in the frames holding the glasses).

[R. Scott]

Prove He existed? Isn’t that asking just a bit much?
How would anyone prove that a man existed 2,000 years ago if that person was not a high level official, priest, renown artist or at least rich? I have never heard of a database existing so long ago that contained every citizen. Even if the name Jeshua ben Joseph of Nazareth appeared, how would it be proven it was the Christ?

[tflabo]

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" Ps.14:1

[Jeff Gordon]

"I'm doing it (the complaint) now because I should do it before I die."

The classical self inflected wound in the foot.

[Sans-Culotte]

So, if this guy wins, will the Pope be sued next?

[DBrow]

Heard of CE and BCE? "Common Era" and "Before Common Era"

BCE stands for "Before Christ's Emergence" and CE stands for "Christ's Emancipation", I thought everyone knew that.

[jennyp]

I think this is a silly way to promote atheism. And of course it's a purely legalistic strategy, which is perfectly suited for the Eurosocialist mindset.

Belief in God is too historically established & pervasive to make any kind of case that the priest is lying or committing some kind of fraud. The better strategy is to confront people with the fact that they would never accept such claims of magical beings found in a collection of self-serving histories of a persecuted religion from 2000 years ago - if these histories weren't referring to the religion that they happen to have faith in. (Why don't more Christians accept the literal truth of the Holy Quran? It's a literal transcription from the mouth of the angel Gabriel to the hand of Mohammed. Isn't it obvious? ;-)

[Past Your Eyes]

Better men than this latest fruitcake have pulled this stunt before. Proving He was who He said He was is almost as easy as proving He existed at all. That should be a walk in the park for anyone with a historical, theological background.

[tflabo]

I hope the ACLU lawyers and cohorts get good views of all the symbols of faith displayed....unless they repent of their wicked doings there wont be ANY such symbols in the hellish afterlife in store. They think they are kicking out God but sadly the reverse is true for them.

[savagesusie]

You can't prove that Aristotle didn't exist.

You mean Socrates. Plato wrote about the defense of Socrates in his dialogues. Aristotle was a student of the Academy that Plato founded. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, so there are historical records that note Aristotle and Plato.

[TheStraightDope]

Indeed. Has this idiot ever heard of the historian by the name of Josephus? We know from numerous other sources that much of what is written in Josephus' histories really occured, so why would he write stuff about a Jesus from Nazareth (including a physical description) if he never existed? And why the hell should it even matter to an atheist if some Jewish reformist started his own religion?

[kenth]

At least he was honest at that moment, though I'm sure he didn't mean to be.

That's the problem with most athiests. They're not really athiests, but antithiests.

[nothingnew]

Good point as well!

It's been my experience that "misery does enjoy company". I say, let them be miserable in their constant quest to erase, in their feeble way, the Truth. Some know the Truth, and there is no harm that will come to us that we can't endure. When we leave this world, well, we will go to a better and perfect place.......that is what their fear is and why they rant against Truth. Faithless people have little to live for except to drag us into their own faithlessness...it's what they (heh heh heh)...live for.

FMCDH(BITS)

[jennyp]

[Taxesareforever:] Then he will stand before a REAL Judge and he will not have a prayer. Sad. Truly sad. He had the opportunity and decided to stand on his own laurels.

[gogogodzilla:] He'll stand there, cover his eyes, and scream, "I can't see you!" over and over again.

So, have you seen God? In the flesh I mean - not just in your mind's eye?

[Past Your Eyes]

"Has Italy imported the ACLU?"

Wouldn't that then be the ICLU?

";^)

[Kirkwood]

It sounds personal. He comes across as a bully who has some long-standing problem with an old classmate (the priest). Probably taunted and bullied him (the priest) when they were kids in school and is doing so yet today by bringing up a frivilous lawsuit.

[Zon]

I suppose you've heard or read: "I won't dignify your question by giving you an answer". Well, it's the same with atheism. If something doesn't exist there's nothing to be gained by addressing the illusion of existence of "something" when "it" is nothing. Atheists dignify that which doesn't exists.